C H A P T E R - V

TENANCY LEGISLATION

Land reform was one of the objectives declared by the Indian National

Movement to mobilise the rural population in the main stream of the freedom

struggle. "Land to the tiller" is the slogan of land reforms, but the tenant who

cultivates the land by the sweat of his brow or aspirations of life, sharing

either the crop or paying a fixed rent to the landlord was unlikely t o achievecl)

this goal. Resistance was bound to face for any such attempts in a feudalistic

society like India. That i s why the agrarian relations based on land ownership,

land control and use of land continue with slight change in almost all Indian

states even today. The success of the tenancy reform is the result of an

increase in the awareness of the tenants brought by the tenancy movement.

Thus wherever powerful tenancy movements were organised, backed by po-

litical ideology, the slogan "land to the tiller" was realised. -

1. AWulAozAndWhkR M n a (ed), LandRehmsin Indh, &mtaka, (MW Delhi, 1977, p. 21.

Pre-independence and post-independence period marked agrarian dis-

content in various parts of India. Many provinces of British India passed ten-

ancy legislation which resulted in temporary relief to certain classes of the

peasantry. Our constitution itself proclaims the significance of land reform

through the inclusion of the four corner stones-justice, liberty, equality and

fraternity-in the preamble of the Indian constitution and land reform acts had

become imperative on the part of the state governments. The first five year

plan recommended security of tenure for tenants subject to the landlord's

rights to resume a limited area for personal cultivation. It was also suggested a

that there was advantage in the government establishing direct contact with

tenants or the abolition of intermediaries and also recommended that the

rent should not exceed one-fourth or one-fifth of the produce.

Politically, economically and socially the peasantry were very weak to

recognise their rights and also to insist on the rights. Various tenancy laws

passed by the states contain loopholes and these loopholes were exploited by

the landowners with the help of the bureaucrats. Hence, it was noted that

the tenancy legislation implemented during the first five year plan failed

miserably. Damle who studied the tenancy legislation in South Canara Dis-

trict, expressed that(')

"the avowed purpose of such tenancy legislation had been to give

protection to tenants against from their lease-holdings. But the

inherent weakness of these tenancy legislation was the provision

that provided the landlords with power to resume their leased out

lands for personal cultivation, which had a detrimental effect on

the actual existence of tenants".

I. C. B. Damle, "Impact Of Tenency Legislation And Changing Agrarian Relations; A Case Study OfDakshina ffinnada DistricY; SbcciaIScientiist, Vol 17, Nas. 11 -12 November-Decembe~ 1989, p. 84.

The post war period had resulted in abnormal rise in the prices of the

agricultural products and this eventually led t o hoarding and black market-

ing. Rack-renting, indebtedness and large scale of eviction were the pe-

culiar features of the period. This created crisis i n the agrarian structure

resulting in powerful conflicts. Under the leadership of the Communist

Party, the workers and the peasants started militant agitations in many

parts of the district.

The government appointed Raghavendra Rao as the special officercl) to

investigate the land tenure system in the ryotwari areas of the Madras

Presidency in 1946. He studied the land tenure system of the ryotwari areas

and recommended thatc2) the conditions of the small peasants proprietors

should be improved by ensuring fair rent and freedom of eviction.

As per the recommendation of the committee and the pressure from

the agrarian classes, the government resorted to certain measures to protect

the tenants from eviction, which was the powerful weapon in the hand of

the landlords. Thus the government introduced Madras Ryot and Tenants

Protection Act of 1 946(3). This act was to provide a temporary protection

of certain classes of tenants and ryots i n the province of Madras. The

Communists were actively engaged in organising the tenants for bargaining

their rights with the landlords in various parts of Madras state, particularly in

Malabar, Tanjore and in parts of South Canara. The Madras Tenants and Ryots

1. G. 0. No. 403, Revenue, Madras G'overnment, d t 2ihd June, 1946.

2. Report M The Special mcer On Land Tenure In The Ryotwari Areas Of the Madrass Province, August, 1941, (Mad/as, 1961), p. 3-9.

3 K L! Kunhik/ishnan, Tenancy Legislation In Malaba~ 1880-1970, (New Delhi, 1993), pp. 110.

Protection Actcl) was enforced in 1949. The act contained the following

provisions. No tenant of any private land in an estate shall be tiable to be

evicted by his landlord in pursuance decree or order for evection and no

holding of a ryot shall be liable to be sold or brought to sale in pursuance of a

decree of order or other proceedings, for recovery of rent. In 1950

the Government enacted the Madras Agriculturists Relief (Amendment)

Actc2). It provided that no creditor should be required to refund any

sum which has been paid to or realised by him before the com-

mencement of the Act.

The Madras Estates Land (Reduction of rent) Act of 1951 provided thatc3),

the amount of rent paid by a ryot before the commencement of this act of

fasli 1357 or for any subsequent fasli, was in excess of the rent should be

adjusted towards the rent payable by him to the holder for any subsequent

fasli. The Madras Indebted Agriculturists (Temporary Relief) Act of 1954,

providedc4) Temporary relief to indebted agriculturists. The agriculturists, who

had borrowed or added to their debts during the years of drought and may, if

freed for a time from the pressure of creditor, be enabled to rehabilitate

themselves.

On 27th February 1954, the South Canara Cultivating Tenants Protection

Act had received the assent of the President of India. It was originally

intended to provide protection from eviction to the cultivating tenants in the

district. It was to be in force for a year. The major defect of the Act was l. The Madras Code, Vol. 4, Unrepealed Madras Acts, Law Department (Madras, 1961), p. 42.

2. Ibid, p. 21 4.

3. Ibid, p. 399.

4. Ibid p. 454.

that, it did not contain any specific provision to prevent the landlord from

evicting the tenants. The Act provided the provision that the tenant could

deposit the rent in the Civil Court or i f the rent be payable in kind, i t s

market value on the date of deposit. This provision was important to help

the tenants to gain documentary evidence instead of the receipt of rent

from the landlords, who were not ready to issue receipts. The prominent

demerit of the Act was that it did not even specify the maximum rent

payable by the tenant.

The Madras Cultivating Tenants Protection Act, 1955 received the as-

sent of the President on 24th September 1955. It incorporated the main provi-

sion of the South Kanara Cultivating Tenants Protection Act 1954, that the

tenant could deposit rent in the Civil Court. The Act provided protection

from eviction to cultivating tenants in certain areas of the state of Madras. No

cultivating tenants shall be evicted from his holding or any part there of,

during the continuance of this Act or at the instance of his landlord, whether

in execution of a decree or order of a court or other wise. Receipt for

payment of revenue was legally enforceable by the tenants. The salient fea-

tures of the Act were that the landlord could not evict the tenant cultivating

land, but he could get only half the extent of the land under tenancy leased

for self-cultivation leaving the remaining half to the tenant. The Act ended in

failure because the Government did not take any measure to prevent evic-

tion. The tenant was not required to return the land to the landlord who had

over 13 acres of wet land or an income tax payee. Rent could not constitute

over 33-40 percent of the crop share.

Further, the South Canara Cultivating Tenants Protection Act was

repealed through the introduction of the Madras Cultivating Tenants

Protection (Amendment) Act of 1956(l). Not withstanding such repeal, all pro-

ceedings taken under the South Canara Cultivating Tenants Protection Act and

which were pending on the date of coming in to force of the act should be

disposed of by the court before such proceedings were pending as if that Act

had not been passed.

The Act gave right to the landlords to resume land for personal

cultivation. The personal cultivation was so easily defined in the act as it

could be easily misused by the landlords. The Act also contained the provision

that the landlord could evict his tenant, in case the tenants neglected land or

took to any activity which could destroy the fertility of the soil.

The Madras cultivating Tenants (Payment of Fair Rent) Act 1956(2) was

passed and came in to force on the l" October 1956. According to the provi-

sions of the act fair rent was determined as

1. In the case of wet land, 40 per cent of the normal gross produce or i t s

value in money.

2. In the case of wet land where the irrigation was supplemented by lifting

water 35 per cent of the normal gross produce or i t s value in money.

3. In the case of any other class of land 33-1 I3 per cent of the normal

gross produce or i t s value in money.

Not withstanding any neglect or failure on the part of the cultivating

l. The Madms C&, VoL 4, Unrepealed MadtasAB, Law &parfment(M&tas, 1961), p. 674.

tenant to raise any crop, the land owner should be entitled to collect fair

rent. The fair rent in respect of any land might be paid either in cash or in

kind or partly in cash and partly in kind in accordance with the terms of the

contract between the landowner and the cultivating tenants.

Even though these acts were introduced to protect the tenants from

eviction or of fair rent, they did not provide a safeguard to the tenants.

Vast majority of the Chalageni tenants did not have any documentary evi-

dence to prove their tenancy right. Thus the tenants did not get legal

protection from eviction. Indebtedness and eviction continued in South

Canara District. The landlords made use of the loopholes in the acts for

their vested interest.

Land Legislation after the formation of the Linguistic states

As a part of the reorganisation of the states, new linguistic states came

in to existence and on l" November 1956. Kasaragod which existed as a part

of South Canara District was amalgamated with Kerala State and South Canara

or Dakshina Kannada District became a part of the Karnataka or Mysore state.

After the formation of these states, Kerala and Karnataka enacted their own

land reforms acts according to the political conditions prevailed in each states.

Thus, there emerged differences in the nature of the land reforms and i t s

implementation in each States. So in order to understand the tenancy legisla-

tion of the district, it i s necessary to study the tenancy legislation of these

two states and to make a comparative study of the nature of the tenancy

legislation and i t s impact up on the agrarian relations.

Land Reforms in Karnataka

Till independence there was no specific laws in land leasing practices.

However after independence it might have received a set back with the

introduction of the Madras Prevention of Ejectment Act of 1954. As stated

above, the Madras Cultivating Tenants Protection Act of 1955, prohibited evic-

tion of tenants in South Canara District for one year. This Act was amended in

1956 extending the period of stay of ejectment from one year to three years

also making the act applicable all over the state except in areas where Malabar

Tenancy Act of 1929 was in force.

This amendment also conferred(') on the landlord the right to resume

for personal cultivation half the extent of the land leased to a tenant pro-

vided that the extent of land held by him on lst October 1956 did not exceed

13.3 acres of wet land or its equivalent on the basis that one acre of wet land

was equal to ll/z acres of garden land or 3 acres of dry land. The right of

resumption was subject to the further condition that it should be limited to

such an extent as would, along with the extent already held by the landlord

either as owner or as tenant or both, would makeup an extent of five acres of

wet 1andc2). The payment of Fair Rent Act of 1 956 attempted to rationalize the

rent payable to the landlords.

The second stage of the peasant struggle started in the district after

the formation of the Dakshina Kannada District. In this stage(3) the Raitha

Sanghas under the leadership of the Communists and the Praja Socialist Party 1. Report Of The Mysore Bnancy Agricultural Land Law Commiffee, ((Bangalore, 1958), p. 11.

3. Jashi G. C! Dasina Unnada Jilleta Raith Horattar (Mangalore Unive~iN 1989, p. 13.

(PSP) were in the forefront of the peasant agitations.

The large scale evictions of tenants were an important feature of the

agrarian structure of the district during the period between 1951 and 1957.

Thus the number of the tenants in Dakshina Kannada District was sharply

declined(') from 589017 in 1951 to 490571 in 1957. During the short period

around one lakh of tenants were evicted. Though the Raitha Sangha resorted

to agitations against this eviction in several parts of the district, it failed

miserably to resist the large scale eviction. It was easy for the landlords in

the district to establish their right of resumption because they were residing

in the very villages in which their leased out lands were situated.For the

same reason it was easy for them to get the support of revenue and police

departments for evicting their tenants.

Kondady movementc2) was an important agitation against eviction. The

peasants under the leadership of Baikadi Sheenappa Shetty, U.S. Nayak and

Devis Luis of P.S.P led the struggle. In November 1956 the peasants began

agitation against eviction of Gowramma, a poor tenant in Kondady of Udipi

taluk, by the landlord. This agitation continued for 17 days and thousands of

peasants participated in the agitation. At last the landlord was forced to

hand over the land t o the tenant Gowramma. This Kondady agitation paved

the way to create a new enthusiasm among the agitating peasantry against

landlordism.

The State Government of Mysore appointed the Mysore Tenancy

1. C C! Damle, Land Reforms And Changing Agrarian Relationsln Dakshina ennada Distriict, Karnataka, PhD. Thesis, Unive~ily OfPune, Quotedln Land Refb/msln Dakshina ennada District By Fbndumga Nayak, unpublished MPhil Thesis, Mangalore Univesi& 1991, p. 68.

2. Jashi G, C! Dasina kinnada Jilleta Raikh Hotamr (Mangalote Unive~i& 1989, p. 16.

Agricultural Land Laws Committee on loth May 1957. The committee was

authorised to examine the existing laws and practices in regard t o the land

tenancy in several areas of the state and consistent with recommendation of

the Planning Commission suggested suitable measures for regulating land

tenures('). It also authorised to examine whether it was feasible to have a

common tenancy law in the new state of Mysore.

The measures suggested(2) towards the end shall cover the matters

like, fixity of rent, security of tenure, right of resumption of land by landlords

for personal cultivation, right of purchase by tenants and payment of com-

pensation to landlords, ceiling extent of landholding, fixing the extent of

basic or economic and family holdings and specifying the areas to which they

apply, prohibition of land ownership as a source of income by persons who

were not themselves cultivators or by those who did not reside either in the

village in which the land was situated or on the farms, matters relating to the

assumption and management or acquisition of lands by government, acquisi-

tion of land from persons who own the land in a village but who were neither

agriculturists nor residents of the village and restraint on alienation of land in

favour of non-agriculturists.

B. D. Jattic3) was the chairman of the committee consisting of eleven

members and the committee submitted its report on loth September 1957.

The committee expressed the opinion that the agricultural economy of the

state largely approaches the ideal of peasant proprietorship. The major

1. Report MThe M p r e anancy AgriculturaIlLand Laws Committee. (Bangalore. 1958). p. 1.

recommendations of the committee werecl )

1. Small holders owing not more than a family holding may also be al-

lowed to lease out land.

2. Small holding (owning not more than a family holding) whose total

income from all sources including the rent of the land in question

does not exceed Rs 1200 would have the benefit of this exemption.

3. In the case of existing leases a limited right of resumption to the

owner, the lease continuing in respect of the resumable area as long

as the right of resumption subsists.

4. All leases to be made in future should be in writing and a copy should

be filed with the prescribed authority unless registered under the

Indian Registration Act.

5. The owner who owns less than a basic holding may resume the entire

area for personal cultivation. A person who holds land exceeding a

basic holding but less than a family holding should be permitted to

resume for personal cultivation one-half of the area held by the ten-

ant but in no event less than a basic holding.

6. The leases should run indefinitely and terminable only if the owner

requires the land for personal cultivation and the usual conditions for

the resumption of land for personal cultivation were fulfilled.

7. The fair rent in respect of all lands, other than lands with assured

irrigation might be fixed at one-fifth of the gross produce, the land-

lord paying the assessment and other government dues.

l. Report M The Mysore Enancy Agricultuli71 Land Laws Committee, (/B$ngalore, l958), p. 46,47,51,57,63.65

8. The ownership of all non-resumable area might vest in government

from a notified date subject t o government paying compensation to

the owner. Tenants wil l acquire ownership rights on payment of the

compensation paid by government. The Govemment should take over

the responsibility to pay compensation and recovering the same from

tenants in installments.

9. The government pay the compensation in a lump sum immediately in

the case of persons from whom less than a basic holding had been

taken over.

Even though the Jatti Committee had submitted its report in a short

period, Govemment delayed the tenancy legislation in order to safeguard the

interest of the land owning class who continued eviction. Thus, the peasant

organisations started agitations against eviction and for the speedy enact-

ment of a land reform act. The peasants under the leadership of P. S. P. in the

district organised meetings to condemn the delay and the indirect support

given by the Government for the eviction of the tenants. Kashimale Shakar

Poojari of Vittal was the tenant of Laxman Sen. The tenant was evicted by

the landlord and a case was charged against him. It was reported that the

police co-operated with the landlord in harassing the tenant. Many such

incidents of eviction with the support of the police were reported from

the district.

In 1958 the Raitha Sangha started campaign for the immediate enact-

ment of the land reform legislation. As a part of this the Sangha organised

jathas in each districts and these jathas marched to Bangalore. In South Canara

District M. H. Krishnappa, Janardana Nayak and Veerppa Saliya took leadership

of the march.

The meeting of the peasants were organised in Upttage village of Udipi

taluk on 20th November 1958. They discussed the draw backs of the Jatti

Committee Report and formulated their suggestions and submitted to the

government in April 1959. Puttur, Vittla, Belthagadi and Udipi became the

centers of the peasant activists.

The eviction and atrocities resulted in the peasant agitations includ-

ing meetings and rallies. They repeated the demand for land to the tiller and

speedy enactment of the tenancy legislation. In many places the agitations

resulted in open clashes between the landlord and the peasantry. Criminal

acts like burning of the tenant houses, forcible harvest of the tenants crops

and the use of goonda elements against the tenants were common during this

period. These happenings became important matters of discussion and criti-

cism during the meetings and rallies.

The proposed Land Reform Act exempted the tea, coffee, coconut

and arecanut plantations. So the peasantry decided to oppose the proposal

and organised mass propaganda to include the plantation areas in the scope of

the tenancy legislation.

In April 1959 the peasants organised rallies at Puttur, Belthagady, Udipi

and Vittal. In Puttur, K. Monappa Shetty took the leadership and in Belthagady,

P. M. Rajendra was the leader. P. Sheena Naik and B. N. Ramayya Setty pre-

sided over the rallies in Udipi and Vittal respectively. In all these rallies the

peasants demanded the reduction of rent, prohibition of eviction and the

immediate enactment of the progressive land reform law. It urged the peas-

ants to unite and agitate for land reform act.

Following the recommendation of the Jatti Committee a bill was for-

mulated in 1961, known as the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961. The B i l l

became an Act in 1965 following the president's assent to it. The major provi-

sions of the Karnataka land reforms Act 1961 were as follows(l).

1, For the first time leasing out land was banned, though certain types of

landlords, like those serving in the defense forces and in the merchant

navy, legal minors, ie, persons under 18 years of age, unmarried women,

widows, persons suffering from physical or mental disability and small

holders were exempted from this ban.

2. Since direct sale of land found to be unfavourable to the tenants inter-

ests, the Act stipulated that the transfer of ownership should be ef-

fected by first vesting the land in the government and then returning

to the tenant.

3. The Act determined the rent payable under leases in the numerous

cases where leasing was exempted. The rent, was determined at 25

percent for land with assured irrigation and 20 percent for unirrigated

land.

4. The Act provided for resumption of land only in very special circum-

stances, such as when it was required for non-agricultural purpose, on

bonafide personal cultivation by the land owners, when the tenant did

not pay rent, caused damage to it, sublet it unauthorisedly or failed to

1. AWuIAzbAnd~hiiA. kh%na (id), LandR&mslnIndb, /(brna&ka, (New&%!hi, 1973, p, 51, 98, ID, 183.

cultivate it for over two years.

The ceiling for each family of 5 members was fixed at 27 standard acre

which was extremely liberal both in terms of the ceiling fixed conces-

sions given and exemptions provided. The Act made provision for each

additional family member and was allowed 6 standard acre up to a

maximum of 54 standard acres for the entire family. The term 'stan-

dard acre' referred to 1 acre of first class irrigated land which was

adjudged to be equivalent to about 8 acre of dry land in an area with

rainfall of less than 25 inches a year.

6. The tenant could secure ownership over non-resumable land by filing

declarations to the Tribunals constituted under the Act. The tenants

dispossessed of land before the 1 0th September 1 957, could, within

one year of the commencement of the Act, apply to the Tribunal for

the restoration of their tenancies. But there was an overriding provi-

sion that Tribunal should not restore tenancies if on the appointed day

the land was used for non-agricultural purpose, or i f it was leased out

to some other tenants or if it was satisfied that eviction or surrender

had taken place in accordance with the law.

The Land Reform Act, 1 961 had its own loopholes. The landowner could

resume up to half of the extent of leased Land as per the records but, practi-

cally any extent of land for personal cultivation. The landlord seeking resump-

tion had to apply to the tribunal in theory, the tribunal was required to

enquire in to all cases for surrender of [and by the tenant to the landlords to

ensure that no coercion had been used and of the surrendered land the land-

lord got only the extent he would have obtained in the event of resumption

and the balance went to the government.

The landowner of all non-resumable land was conferred on the persons

cultivating it as tenants by a notification from the state government declaring

that with effect from a prescribed date all the land specified stood vested in

the government. There after, the cultivating tenants were registered as own-

ers of the land. But in practice, generally the officials belonging to the tribu-

nal took part on the side of the landlords and in many cases the tenants lost

their land.

Struggle against eviction continued during this period also. In 1961 a

militant struggle was held at Narikambo in Bantwal taluk. It was a struggle

against eviction organised by the Raitha Sangha. Narikambo Venkitta Rao was

the landlord and his goondas murdered a peasant. Thus the open clashes

between the goondas of landlords and the peasants were common in the

district.

In 1968 at Amagali in Coondapoor taluk the Raitha Sangha organised a

struggle against eviction under the leadership of B. Ramachandra Rao and

Karkkada. This struggle turned as direct fight between the landlord and the

peasants. As a part of the struggle the Sangha organised a public meeting at

Basarur. When the meeting was going on the goondas of the landlord attacked

and it turned in to direct fighting.

The 1961 Act created discontent among the tenants of this district and

started agitations demanding for new land reforms for the protection of the

tenants. Between 1965-1 971 peasants unions were formed in Udipi, Mulki,

Coondapura and other places of Dakshina Kannada District. It was not easy for

the poor peasants to resist successfully the efforts of landlords to evict them

because of the widespread landlordism, the support of the revenue and po-

lice departments to the landlords and the fundamental defects of the Madras

Legislations and subsequently the 1 961 Act.

In the assembly election in 1967 some Communist and peasant leaders,

including B. V. Kakkillaya, became the members in the Legislative Assembly of

Kamataka. They tried to present their slogan that ploughing men should be

the owner of the land or 'land to the tiller' in the legislative assembly. It is

stated that during the 1967 election the Congress Socialists fought a powerful

election campaign in which they pointed out that the 1961 Act was passed by

the Congress Party only to strengthen the position of the land owning class.

Peasant rallies were conducted on 20th September 1970 at Mangalore and Bantwal

and demanded the amendment of the Act of 1961. Mammoth peasants confer-

ences were organised on 26th February 1972 in Bhadragiri village of Udipi

taluk and they demanded abolishion of landlordism in the district(').

The problems of the tenants in the District had been highlighted by

the Socialist leaders on the floor of the Karnataka Legislative Assembly during

the early 1970's. Thus, it witnessed so many debates prior to the enactment

of the Kamataka Land Reform (Amendment) Act, 1974. Some of those debates

were as follows.

H. V. Koujalgi, the then Minister for Revenue stated that in the Kamataka

1. Panduraga Nayak, Land Reforms in Dakshina Kannada Distrid, Unpub/ish& MPhil Thsis, Mangalore Univers@, 1991, p. 80.

State Assembly, inorder to avoid delay in granting land to the landless tenants

local consultative committees had been formed and they had been requested

to dispose all land within the four months. This was against the question

raised by the A R Badari Narayana the M LA of Shimoga(l).

To the question of M. Nagappa, MLA from Raichur, H. V. Koujalgi, the

Minister for Revenue answered that the government had granted 141 085 acres

of land during the period from 1962-1969 in the Karnataka State and in South

Canara it was 68.37 acresc2). H. V. Patil, the member of Karnataka Legislative

Assembly had criticised the government, during the six years they had been

able to distribute only 141 085 acres and still there was about 15-20 lakhs areas

of land available for distribution. He expressed that the officers were deliber-

ately delaying the grant of lands. Thus it shows the inefficiency of the govern-

ment and the betrayal of the government to deceive the peoplec3).

The Governor of Mysore in his address t o the State Assembly on

25th March 1972 had stated that a national policy providing for lower ceiling

on agricultural holdings had been enunciated, based on the recommendations

on the Central Land Reforms Committee. In the light of these recommenda-

tions, the land reform laws in the state was proposed to be amended suitably.

The work of bringing up the record of rights up to-date and the issue of patta

books will be speeded up. It was also proposed to lower the ceiling for the

grand of land under unauthorised occupation t o eligible persons. So that the

1. ffirnataka Legislative AEsemblydebates, B section Vol. 28,l.P Octobe~1970to 19 October 1970, p. 284.

2. ffirnafaka Legislative Assembly debates 8th sesssion, Vol. 227, 2lSt Septembe~ 1970 to 29th Septembe~ 1970, p. 250-251.

3. Ibid p. 253.

encroachments would be eliminated from excess arrears which could then

became available for distribution to land less persons and poor farmers(').

Answering to the question of Mallikarjun Kharze, MLA from Gurmitkal,

the then Chief Minister, D Devaraj Urs stated that between first January 1971

to 12th January 1972, 157 murders had occurred in the Karnataka State con-

nected with the land disputesc2).

P. A. Pawasha MLA from Uchagaon raised the question to the Karnataka

State Legislative Assembly that whether there were any instance of eviction

of tenants on the ground of non-payment of rent and surrender of lands after

the coming into force of the Mysore Land Reforms Act, 1961. The then, Rev-

enue Minister N Hutchamasthy answered, yes, to the question and also re-

marked that for non-payment of rent 11 3 acres of land were evicted and as a

result of voluntary surrender there was 19037 acres of landc3).

M. S. Krishnan MLA, from Malleswaram constituency, criticised the gov-

ernment for its failure to tackle the problems of agricultural workers by non-

fixation of a minimum living wage, giving them sites and materials for the

construction of housec4).

C. M. Arumugham, MLA from Kolar gold fields criticised that the gov-

ernment had miserably failed to cater to the needs of the agriculturists and

landless persons in the state. The Revenue Department had virtually lost its

importance and it was turned as a department of collection. He also expressed 1. Karnataka Legisative Assembly debates f i t session vol. 1 2 P March, 1972 to 2 9 March

1972, p. 37-38.

2. Mataka Legislative Assembly debated Vol. 8th, 2 P November 1972, p. 72.

3. Karnaiaka Legislative Assembly DeIwtes vol. 8,2# Novemberl972.

4. Karnataka Legislative Assembly Debates 3rd session vol. 10 1Bh February 1973 to 2lSt February 1973, p. 276.

the opinion that the Revenue Minister would destroy the agrarian structure, not

by introducing land reforms to benefit one and all living in rural areas?

C M Arumugham also remarked that every day the meeting was going

on but, there was no progress in drafting the Land Reform (Amendment) Bill.

There was so much delay and the committee's works had not been pro-

gressed. There were vested interests and they wanted to prevent the bil l

being passed. He stated, that this was the reason while the land reform bil l

had not been able to get through and the Government was not able to place it

before the house(2).

The failure of the Government in implementing the Land Reform Act

was criticised in the Karnataka Legislative Assembly on 26th April 1973 by

Damodar Moolky, M.L.A. of Moodabidri constituency, though they had been

promising land reforms for many decades('). He appealed to the Government

to give protection to all the tenants and he further brought to the notice of

the Assembly that the peasants were being exploited by the rich landlords

who were also acting as money lenders. Hencec4) he requested the govern-

ment to make arrangements to give loans to the peasants at comparatively

low rate of interest. Thus these discussions and peasants agitations acquired

significance in the district and eventually led to the enactment of a tenant

oriented, land legislation.

The Karnataka Land Reform Act 1974, was formed bearing the common

1. Karnataka Legislative Assembly Debates Td session, vol. 15, 2Ph April 1973 to 9 May 1973, p. 201.

3 Mysae Legislative Assembly debate Vol. IS, M 2 6 April 1973, p. 198-199.

guidelines put forward by the Chief Minister's conference(') of 1973, which

held detailed discussions on the common guidelines with regard to the ceiling

limit, unit of ceiling application, exemption and the way in which surplus land

would be distributed. A comprehensive bil l was drafted and referred to a

Joint Select Committee of Karnataka Legislature under the chairmanship of

the then Revenue Minister Kudidal Manjappa in 1971. The Committee organised

a workshop at Mysore and a seminar in Mysore University with a view to

eliciting inputs. Taking in to consideration, the recommendation of the com-

mittee, the Government of Karnataka passed the Land Reforms (Amendment)

Act in 1973 and this received the assent of the President in March 1974. The

Kamataka Land Reform Act, 1961 was comprehensively amended and brought

in to force with effective from first March 1974.

It is important to mention one of the aspects of the Joint Select Com-

mittee. It was composed of radicals among the Congress (I) members, Com-

munists and Socialist Party legislators and even the academic component of

the university seminar consisted of radical academician^(^). As a result certain

radical provisions were included in the proposed legislation. For example,

the land ceiling limit was proposed to 10 standard acrec3), practically no ex-

emptions to special categories were provided to institutions such as religious

and educational institutions and plantations and orchards from the ceiling

provisions. Even those with an annual income of Rs. 12,000 from non-agricul-

tural sources and living! 16 km awav from the site of the land cultivated were 1, AWulAzbAnd~hirA. klishtw (ed), LandRehns In Ind&/ ffimafakaI (New Whi, 1973, p. 52.

3. The ChiefMinistes Conference in 1973put forward the guideline that the ceiling limit with in the range of l 0 to 18 acre for land with assured irrigation and capable of yielding atleast two crops a year:

not to be allowed to own and cultivate land.

But even before the bil l went through the legislative process, the

radical provisions included were dropped. This was because of interference

and pressure of the land owning bureaucrats such as big land owners, sugar

factories, coffee planters and religious and educational institutions. Thus the

basic theme of the land ceiling(') was changed and non-agricultural income,

and distance criteria were dropped to safe guard the interest of the privi-

leged class. Even though the ceiling limit was retained at 10 standard acre far

a family with five members, a provision of 2 standard acre for every member

in excess of five, but in no case was the ceiling area to exceed 20 standard

acre. In the case of religious and educational institutions, the ceiling fixed

was 20 standard acre and 50 standard acre in the case of sugar factories.

Various types of plantations were exempted from the provision of the ceiling

on land holding.

The major provisions of the Kamataka Land Reforms (Amendment) Act,

1974 are following:

1) All lands held by or in the possession of tenants were vested with

the State Government.

2) A soldier or a seaman was entitled to resume land to the extent of

the ceiling area whether his tenant i s a protected tenant or not. The

Act removed the provision in the 1961 Act that enabled the small

landlords, widows and minors to create tenancy.

l. Abdul AzizAnd Sudhir A. Krishna (ed), Land Reforms In India, Karnataka, (New Delhi, 1977), p. 54.

3) Dwelling units occupied by agricultural labourers were taken over by

the Government and handed to the occupant.

4) Ceiling area for the individual was 10 units. In the case of a family

consisting of more than 5 members, the ceiling area shall be 10 units

plus an additional extent of two units for every member in excess of

5, so however that the ceiling area shall not exceed 20 units in

aggregate.

5) All lands held by a person in excess was of the ceiling area, were to

be taken over by the Government and compensation paid to the

land loser.

6) Acquisition of agricultural land by persons earning an annual income

over Rs. 1200, sources other than agriculture was prohibited by the

Act.

7) The Act defined tenant as belonging to the category of permanent

and protected tenancies or ordinary tenants provided, they culti-

vate lands personally.

8) ATribunal was constituted in each Taluk, by the Government through

notification, for the purpose of the Act. Assistant Commissioner of

the Revenue Subdivision, having the jurisdiction over the taluk or

an Assistant Commissioner specially appointed for the purpose of

this Act was the Chairman of the Tribunal. Four others were nomi-

nated by the State Government, of whom at least one shall be a

member of the State Legislature. The Tahsildar shall be the Secre-

tary of the Tribunal. No legal practioner shall be allowed to appear

in any proceedings before the Tribunal.

9) The Act prevented, for a period of fifteen years from the date of

acquiring occupancy rights, any transfer of land by sale, gift, ex-

change or assignment. Any such transfer could be declared null and

void by the Tahsildar who was empowered to issue a declaration

forfeiting the land to the Government.

10) The rent recovery suits filed on or after 2nd October 1965 and s t i l l

pending were to be decided in terms of the 1974 Act which fixed

rent at ten times the aggregate of the assessment on the leased

land. This rate was much lower than that fixed by the 1961 Act. The

Act made provision for helping the tenants who were in arrears of

rent in terms of the 1961 Act.

11) The Act provided compensation to the landlord, while taking his

land. The owners of dry land could receive 200 times of the land

revenue and the owners of irrigated land could receive 150 times

land revenue plus 150 times of the truncated water rate applicable

to the class of land involved.

12) The tenants could file declarations or applications before the Tribu-

nals and the last date was originally 31 s t December, 1974. Later it

was extended up to June 30, 1979. It permitted informal tenants to

file declarations for getting ownership rights. The Act intended to

enable the sub-tenants also to claim occupancy rights.

13) Every person who was deemed to have land in excess of the ceiling

limit was expected under law to fi le a declaration before the

specified time limit, failing which was liable to penalty. The Tribu-

nal would determine the surplus land on the basis of an examination

of the records direct the landowner to surrender the surplus. Under

the provision of the Act, the surplus land vesting with the Govem-

ment was to be transferred to the dispossessed and displaced ten-

ants, landless agricultural labourers and released bonded labourers

subject to the condition that 50 per cent of such land should be

granted to persons belonging to Scheduled Castes and Scheduled

Tribes.

In order to facilitate speedy implementation of the Reform Act, land

tribunals were formed one in each taluk and 176 tribunals were setup in the

entire state. Speedy disposal of cases by the tribunals had resulted in a flow

of writ petitions before the High Court of Karnataka, about 50,000 being

filed. The High Court had no power to interfere to decide the cases, thus it

simply recommended the cases to the tribunals along with i t s observations.

Thus an observation(') was made by the High Court in W. P. No. 28441 11981

that the disposal of the case by the tribunal was unsatisfactory. This observa-

tion i s one of the examples of the credibility of the land tribunals.

A few peasant leaders were the members of the Land Tribunals. Impor-

tant among themc2) were B. V. Kakkillaya from Bantwal, Baikady Sheenappa

Shetty from Udipi, Ammembala Balappa from Bantwal, Veerappa Moily from

1. Abdul Azk And Sudhir A. Krishna (ed), Land Reforms In India, Karnataka, (New Delhi, 1977), p. 126.

2. Pandumga Nayak Land Refbnns In Dakshina mnnada Distbd, Unpublished MPhi/ ntes~s, Mangalore Universib 1991, p, 110.

Karkala and Bhaskar Shetty from Kapu.

The observation made by the High Court and the criticism leveled

against the land tribunals had resulted in the amendment of the act and made

the provision of appeal in 1986. Land Reforms Appellate Authorities were

formed(') at least one in each district. The appeal lay to a two member

Appellate Authority consisting of a C iv i l Judge and an officer of the rank of

Deputy Commissioner constituted under section 11 6A. By using this opportu-

nity several landlords approached the High Court with writ petitions.

The confirmation of occupancy right (section 38) in favour of agricul-

tural labourers in the house he had constructed on the land of others (he had

no land of his own and constituted house in the place of the landlord) came in

to effect from ISt January 1979. Thus agricultural labourers were permitted to

enjoy not exceeding 5 cent of land. But the land tribunal was the competent

authority to decide the case. It i s stated that out of 25937 applications for the

occupancy right over houses of agricultural labourers 25492 applications were

disposed(2) in Kamataka state and 15530 applications were disposed of in favour

of the applicants and 9974 applications were rejected. Thus 33 per cent ap-

plications were rejected by the Land Tribunals as on 31"August 1987.

The official records of the Karnataka Government, states that Kamataka

had a prominent position as one of the few states that took the land reforms

and policies seriously(3), not only by enacting appropriate law, but also by

implementing it with great vigor and transparency. The implementation of

1. Abdul Aziz And Sudhir A. Krishna (ed), Land Reforms In India, Karnataka, (New Delhi, 197% p. 126.

2. Ibid p. 128.

the land reform Act reveals that in Karnataka State as a whole, 59.7 per cent

applications were granted(') occupancy right. The maximum number of occu-

pancy right was granted in Uttara Karnataka District (81.8 percent) and Dakshina

Kannada District (77.7 per cent). At the same time the achievement was very

poor in Kodagu District (2.9 per cent), Gulbarga District (18.0 percent) and

Raichur District (22.0 per cent) of the Karnataka state.

The above facts reveal that, even though the official arguments about

the advantages of the tenancy legislation are high in practice, the state was

able to achieve very little. There were many factors for the poor imple-

mentation of the land reforms in Karnataka as a whole and Dakshina Kannada

in particular.

The achievement of the land legislation and land ceiling in Dakshina

Kannada District had contributed very l i t t le in changing existing agrarian rela-

tions. Gopal lyer, while observing the land legislation in Karnataka expressed

that in Dakshina Kannada District whatever land had been declared surplus

was dry land of the worst quality and very difficult t o put under cultivation.

This opinion reveals the pitiable condition of the tenancy after the post-land

reform period in the district. More over, the land acquired and distributed

under the land ceiling Act was of low quality.

The success of the land reform was the result of an increase in the

awareness of tenants brought about by the peasant movement. Dakshina

Kannada District occupies the second place in the implementation of land

1. Abdul AzizAnd Sudhir A. Krishna (ed), Land Reforms in India, Karnataka, (New Delhi, 1971), p. 84.

legislation in Karnataka State due to the emergence of the Raitha Sangha.

The Raitha-Sanghas backed by the leftist parties (CPI (M) and CPI) had con-

tributed much in this direction. They tried to mobilise the rural peasantry

including the tenants and agricultural labourers. They tried to educate the

weaker section and engaged agitation against the challenge of the landlords.

It resulted in violent clashes between the peasants and the landlords who

were supported by the police. The forceful eviction was a common feature

in Dakshina Kannada District. The peasantry under the leadership of the Raitha

Sangha resisted the forceful eviction and burning of houses, physical violence

such as assaults and even murders. These incidents reached their climax espe-

cially after the implementation of the 1974 Act.

In some parts of Dakshina Kannada District the landlords acted

cunningly and behaved generously and helped their tenants to f i le

declaration(') for occupancy rights before the land tribunals. In many cases

these landlords managed to make mutual agreement and take half of the

tenanted land. In such cases the pretension was it for self cultivation and

retains the unclaimed land in his land. Thus the landlord employed diplomatic

strategy to prevent involvement of the tenants with the Raitha Sanghas and

there by to avoid the spread of communism in his village. This new technique

was adopted by the landlords in many parts of the district with some success.

On the other hand the Raitha Sanghas and the communists failed to adopt a

new strategy against these landlords.

1. C B. Damle, "Impact Of Ofnency Legislatton And Changing AgmrLan Relations; A Cas? Study OfDabhina fhnnada Distriki": SrialScientiisf, VoL 17, Nos. l 1 -12 November-Deembe4 1989, p. 89.

The enactment of the Act 1974 also paved the way for open clashes

between the peasants and the landlords in many parts of the district. The

Raitha Sanghas played an active role in organising and fighting against the

atrocities caused by the landlords. Certain examples of these sort of agita-

tions were worth mentioning.

A large meeting of the peasants was held(') at Karnataka on 5th May

1974. Some landlords secured injunctions from courts against the tenants from

cultivating leased lands. The large numbers of peasants were not in a position

to enter in to a legal fighting because of their ignorance and backward finan-

cial condition.

The Raitha Sangha took this issue to create public awareness. The

leaders like B. V. Kakkillaya, S. V. Velankar, M. Ramappa and V. V. Upadhyaya

(All belonged to CPI), strongly criticised thisc2) practice of the landlords. Even

then the atrocities of the landlords continued including the burning of houses.

The landlords burned the houses of the poor peasants named Mahabala Hegde

and Koraga Poojary. So the leaders also demanded an enquiry in to the cases

of burning of the peasant houses.

The report of Aruna reveals that the landlords even used the natural

calamities as an opportunity to evict the tenantsc3). When in 1974, the flood

affected some parts of the district, the peasants were forced to vacate their

tands and houses and had gone to temporary shelters. When they returned

after the flood, the landlords prevented them from rebuilding houses on their

1. Panduranga Nayak, Land Reforms In Dakshina armada DiSrid, MPhil Thesis, Mangalore Univesitv, 1991, p. 112,

2. Aruna, Publishedby I/( N. Sreenimsa Bhat, Mangalore, Vol. 24 No. 19, May12, 1974, p. 2.

3 Ibid p. 2.

land. Thus the landlords indulged in inhuman activities for eviction. Raitha

Sangha organised meetings in various parts of the district to condemn the

activity of the landlords. This would not make any change in the attitude of the

landlords.

Aruna's report also reveals that the police had given support to the

landlords for eviction of the tenants and thus the tenants were tortured with

the atrocities of the police on one hand and the landlords on the other. Aruna

reports thatcl) Thukara Moily of Durga village of Karkala taluk had given a

complaint to the District Police Superintendent. In it, he stated that when his

landlord, D. Ananth Bhat tried to evict him the police officers of Karkala did

not give protection to him, even though he had got an injunction from the

Munsiff Court. Infuriated police officers of Karkala called the tenant to the

police station on 26th September 1974 and threatened to arrest him if he

complained, against the landlord. After that on 1" October the landlord's

goondas, accompanied by some policeman, entered the land of the tenant

and destroyed the crops. This incident shows that the landlords were backed

by the police for eviction even against the court order.

In October 1974, the landlord of Byrampally village of Udipi taluk pre-

vented the harvesting of the crops of his tenant named Perke, Padmanabha

Naik. All the cultivations were done by the tenant and he was threatened

with eviction. But the Raitha Sangha and the Communist Party had given

assistancec2) to Padmanabha Naik, the tenant. Around 80 volunteers of the

Sangha went to assist him under the leadership of B. K. Krishnayya Shetty and

1, Aruna, Pubbshedby C! N. S&vasd Bhat, Mangalore, Vol. 28, No. 40, W b e r 6,1974, p. 2.

2. Ibiij. VoL 28, No. 42, Wber20,1974, p. 2.

harvested the crops.

In Anjaru village of Udipi talukAranthabettu Namu Naik and Paddu Naik

were threatened by their landlord from harvesting the crops in October 1974.

But the Raitha Sangha of Udipi taluk decided to assist the tenants for harvest.

Thus 300 volunteers of the sangham went to harvest. When the harvesting

was started the police interfered and at last the police was forced to settle

the matter.

A meeting of the Raitha Sangha was organised at Athrady and

Badagabettu village of Udipi taluk in October 1975. It was presided over by

N. Krishnamurthi Achar at Athrady meeting and Narayana Bhat at Badagabettu

meeting. They discussed the harassment of the poor peasants by the landlords

with the support of the police and decided to organise the peasants against

this and also urged the government to take steps against the harassment.

The landlord had control over the ignorant peasants and in many cases

they were misled by the landlords. The landlords had given false promises

and the innocent peasants believed it and abstained from filing declaration to

the tribunals. Instances of exploitation of the blind faith was reported from

the district. There were also an instances of the production of improper

declarations by the tenants under the influence of the landlords('). In short

vested interests of the landlords had misguided the tenants in filing their

declarations.

The Raitha Sangha of Bantwal decided to help the farmers in view of

the above in filing the declarations incorrectly. So they made suitable

arrangements at the Bantwal taluk Raitha Sangha Office. Similar arrangements

were also made in Vittal, Mangalore, Udipi and Karkala taluks.

The peasant's organised meetings in different parts of the district to

create awareness in the effective implementation of the land reform act.

The meeting urged the peasants to f i le their declaration and make use of the

reform favourable to them. Such a meeting was held(') on lgth July 1974 at

Kankady of Mangalore taluk. Ramappa Suvara presided over the meeting and

Simpson Soans was the Speaker. Another meeting was heldc2) at Kodavee at

Bajal village of Mangalore taluk on 2Ist July 1974. It was presided over by

P. M. N. Murthy. He also presided over a meeting of the peasants held at Ullal.

On 6th September 1975 a meeting of peasants was held at lrvathur village of

Karkala taluk. It was presided over by B. Sreenivasa Rao and B. Viswanatha

Naik, the secretary of the Bantwal Raitha Sangha, was the important speaker.

These meetings urged the peasants the need for their unity and motivated

them to file declarations without fail.

However, the disposals of the petitions by land tribunals were in favour

of the tenants. According to the official statistical reportsc3) by August 1987,

99.9 per cent applications had been disposed by the land tribunals and in

136880 out of 176237, i.e.77.7% cases, the tribunal judgments had been in

favour of the tenants. It was an illusory image of the success of the tenancy

legislation, but far away from reality. In 1957 there were actually 490571

tenants in the district(4), but by 1987, the beneficiaries under the tenancy law

1. Aruna, Published by C! N. Sreenimsa Bhat, Mangalore, Vol. 228, No. 28, Ju&28,1974, p. 2.

2. Ibid, p. 2.

3. C B. Damle, "Impact MTenency Legislation And ChangingAgtarian Relations; A Ase Study M Damha ffinnad7 DM&; SaiaISi3entig Vol. 17, NB. 11 -12 N w m & r U z m & ~ 1989, p. 88, see also AWul Azir And SudhirA. Kiishna (ed), Land Refbrms In India, Karnataka, (New Delhi, 1977), p. 132.

4. Ibid, p. 84.

were only 136880 and hence the real success of the implementation of the

tenancy law in Dakshina Kannada District was as low as 27.2 percent only.

Damle explains two reasons(') for the rapid decrease. Firstly, the tenants

should be able to purchase the leased-in-land from the landlord and was

then converted in to land holders. A few mulageni tenants were able to

purchase land and the number was limited. But the vast majority of the

tenants belonged to the Chalageni or tenants-at-will. The economic

conditions of the tenants were weak, so they were not in a position to

purchase the land. The second assumption i s important and valid, that the

tenants had been evicted in large scale from the leased holdings. As opined

by a scholar(2) the problem of tenancy was not only significant in Karnataka

state but also the potentialities of agrarian social change were sabotaged by

the tactics of power politics and bureaucratic lethargy. Thus, the actual rate

of the implementation of tenancy legislation in Dakshina Kannada District

was very poor.

The implementation of the act failed to eliminate the inequality

existing in the agrarian structure. The officials of the implementing agency

utterly failed to recover the surplus land nor i t s proper distribution for

fulfilling the objectives put forward by the national movement and the ob-

jectives of the five year plans. Out of 2178 declarations receivedc3) under

land ceiling provisions of the Act, 2171 (ie 99.7%) declarations were disposed

1. C B. LJamle, 'rmpact MTenency Legislation And Changing Agrarian Relations; A As? Study M Dabhim ffinmh D%&; SkMlSenti$ Vd. 1Z M s . 11-12l \k7vm&r~mh?~ 1989, p. 88.

3 Abdul AzizAnd Sudhir A. Krishna (ed), Land Reforms In India, Karnataka, (New Delhi, 1973, p. 162

of by 3Ist August 1987. Of these, only in 26 cases (ie 1.2%) was surplus land

determined. On the other hand the process of land redistribution has also

been fairly slow, since out of the 3,248 acre determined as surplus land in the

district, only 636 acre. (19.6%) has been redistributed('). Thus the recovery of

surplus land from the land owners and the redistribution to the tenant was

also a failure.

One of the reasons for this was that the landlords were not ready to

file their declaration honestly. The land tribunals relied primarily on the cases

filed by the landowners. Very little administrative efforts were taken to iden-

tify land concealed by large landowners. The main reason for the failure was

due to the absence of pressure from the needy. This exposes the inherent

weakness of the left oriented peasant organisations in the district.

While examining the response of the Act, 1974, majority of the tribunal

decisions were taken in favor of the tenants (77.67%). It i s important to note the

fact that a large number of marginal holdings measure below an acre, through the

redistribution of surplus land. According to the official report, in 1980-81 of

1,61,271 holdings in the district 86,639 (53.7%) holdings were less than one

hectorc2). This kind of increase in tiny holdings was due to the population growth

and the partition of land holdings of the beneficiaries of land reforms. Since the

holdings are not economically viable, majority of these marginal holders have

taken up wage labour in agricultural or non-agricultural sector.

In the Kamataka State some of the large landowners in possession(3) of l. AbduIAzizAndSudhkA. Krishna (ed)/ Land Reformsln India, Karnataka, (New Delhi,

1977), p. 162

over 50 acres have been netted with in the ceiling surplus cases, indicating

part ia l effectiveness i n implementat ion. The common method of

circumvention adopted by the ceiling surplus owners were declaring minor

sons as major sons, setting up collusive tenancy, conversion of agricultural

land in to non-agricultural land and plantation, partition of land and diverse on

paper, contracting more than one marriage on paper and so on. The pending

cases are related with the large owners.

These aspects reveal that the landowners are helped by implementing

authority and hence prevented the proper implementation of the act. Only

57.56 per cent of the area declared surplus had been taken in to possession in

the Karnataka State and there is a considerable gap between the area taken

in to possession and distributed(l); 26.28 per cent of the area taken in t o

possession is yet to be distributed. At the state level, 1.42 lakh acres remain

under litigation, constituting 52 per cent of the area declared as surplus.

Through the Amendment Act, 1986, provision of appeal was granted.

This resulted in a flow of appeal by the landlords. The chief intention behind

the filing of appeal was to prolong the decision and gain verdict in favour of

them against the poor and illiterate peasants. They used threat, force and all

sorts of harassment against the tenants for eviction. On the contrary the

peasant has no means to fight the legal battle against the landlords who were

economically rich and politically influential.

From the early period itself the land of the district was concentrated

in the hands of the high castes especially, the Brahmin, Bunts and the Jains.

1. Abdul Rriz And Sudhir A. Krishna (ed), Land Reforms In India, Karnataka, (New Delhi, 197% p. l l Z

This kind of caste based structure of the agrarian relations continued during

the British period. It was accelerated particularly during the

economic depression of 1929-34 and the second world war, 1939-45(l). The

caste supremacy over the land monopoly remained as such on the eve of the

implementation of the land reforms. Two main reasons were attributed to

thisc2), one was that prior to the implementation of the land reform legisla-

tion, the landlords resorted to large scale eviction of tenants, who came

primarily from the middle castes. And, secondly after the eviction of ten-

ants the land brought in to market and large parts of the buyers belonged to

the upper castes.

To retain the monopoly over the land, the landlords resorted to all

tactics including the use of superstitious beliefs of the poor peasants.

Basically the peasants were illiteratec3) and lived with all sort of superstitions.

They also spread rumors and misgivings about land reforms in such a way that

the tenants were sacred and cared more for their survival than for land. The

land owned class propagated that the land reform act was against the interest

of the peasants, they were protected by the land lords. Doctors, bureaucrats,

lawyers, upper class traders, businessman, bank employers etc belonged to

landlord class or the elite class. The poor tenants had to depend occasionally

on these elite class for getting modem sophisticated services. It was there

fore quite natural that many had developed a second thought before claiming

1. C B. darnk, '7mpactWl2nmcyLegBbt&n And Changing Agrarian Re,bt@ns; A C$se S?uqP M dakshina /C3nna& Distnstn&;SbrhlSi3mtid, W. 1I, Nos. 1 1 - 1 2 N o ~ r n k - D a c m ~ 19B, p. 85

2 Abdul Azir And Sudhir A. Krishna (ed), Land Reforms In India, Karnataka, ((NW Delhi, 1977), p. 164.

3 POLI, A Commermrative Value For C a m , (ed), Published By Distriic Commisioner, D K D~striic~ Mangalore, p. 94.

occupancy right over their tenanted land. In many cases the tenancy records

were forcibly taken and destroyed by the landlords. Under these circum-

stances, several tenants did not show much interest in acquiring occupancy

rights on payment of a price to the government, but preferred to continue

as tenants provided they were assured of their tenurial security and

regulated rent.

The major objective of land reform legislation was the eradication

of the economic and social inequalities which prevailed for centuries. But

the land reform legislation in the Dakshina Kannada District failed to achieve

this. The Act, 1974 included many progressive provisions for re-structuring

the agrarian relations. But it became unfruitful when the implementing

official's attitude was hostile. The foul play of the power politics with the

landed aristocracy caused the failure of effective implementation. The peas-

ant organisations especially leftist Raitha Sanghas backed by the Communist

movements failed to use adequate pressure for effective implementation

of the reform.

The Act, 1974 was intended to enable the tenants to acquire ownership

rights. But as stated earlier, between 1951 to 1957,98444 tenants were evicted.

The numbers of tenants were sharply declined(') from 490571 in 1957 to 70591

in 1974. However, it did not make any effective provision for rehabilitating

those tenants who were already dispossessed of land before 24th March 1974.

The Act, 1974 did not make any provision for helping agricultural

labourers. But in a special section of the Act in January 1979, provided the

l. Joshi G. L! Dasina Mnnada Jilleta Raith Horattar (Mangalore UniveTsiN 1989, p. 12.

provision that an agricultural labour residing in a dwelling house in a land not

belonging to the dwelling house and the adjacent site around it, which was

limited to one twenty an acre. Since this provision was made as late as

January 1979, the time limit for filing declaration was too short. Thus many

agricultural labourers failed to take advantages of it.

Thus the Land Reform Act, 1974 failed to confer benefits to a large

number of agricultural labourers. In many parts of the district they remained

as unorganized. Up to 1987 they have filed only(') 14306 applications for dwelling

sites. This was a very small number comparing with the number of tenants. Of

these 14306 applications 33 per cent were rejected by the tribunals.

Land reform in Kasaragod

On account of various agitations and representations of the people of

Kasaragod taluk, the Malabar Tenancy Committee proposed the extension of

the legislation to includec2) all the villages, south of Chandragiri river and two

villages, Badiadka and Bandadukka. Thus even though Kasaragod formed a

part of South Canara District, all the later tenancy acts introduced in Malabar

covered Kasaragod taluk also.

The Malabar Tenancy Committee submitted i t s report in December,

1940. Among the three leftist members of the committee, E. M. S.

Namboodiripad, Mohamed Abdul Rahiman Seheb and E. Kannan had appended

their dissenting minutesc3). E. M. S. Namboobiripad focused the evils of land-

lordism and demanded i t s abolition. The committee did not propose the

l. J&i G. K Dasina ffinnada Jilleta Raith Hotattar (Mangalore Universih 1989, p. 12.

2. Report of the Ma/a&r Gnancy CommitteeI 1940, chapter 11, p. 670.

3. K K Kunhikrishnan, Bnancy Legislation In Malabaj 1880-1970, (New De/hb 1993), p. 100.

reduction of the existing rent rates. The interests of the landlords and

Mulagenidar were represented in the committee, but the interests of the

chalagenidar was not adequately represented as far as the Kasaragod taluk

was concerned. Though the committee consisted of majority of Congress-

men, the report was not satisfactory even to the Congress. When the final

report was submitted, the Congress Ministry was not in office, because it

resigned with the out break of the second world war in 1939.

The 1940's marked militant peasant unrest backed by the Communists

in Malabar and Kasaragod. A tenancy subcommittee was constituted by the

Kerala Pradesh Congress Committee (K.P.C.C.) in April 1947, to suggest(') the

amendments in the Tenancy Act of 1929. The KPCC sub committee recom-

mended that a tenant who had been ousted from or had surrendered posses-

sion of his holding, since 14th July 1937 (date of assumption of office by the

first Congress Ministry in Madras) shall, on application, be granted re-delivery

of possession subject to certain limitation and arrears of rent accrued prior to

the particular date (2 years before the commencement of 1946 Tenants Pro-

tection Act) to be wiped off.

As per the recommendation^(^) of the sub committee the KPCC drafted

a tenancy bill in August 1948, in response to the wishes of the Malabar Kisan

Congress. Thus due to the development of unrest among the peasantry, the

drafted proposal of the tenancy bill by the K. P. C. C. and on the basis of the

recommendations of the tenancy committee of 1940, the Malabar Tenancy Act

1929 was further amended in 1 951.

1. L! K Kunhiktfshnan, Enancy Legislation In Malabar; 1880-1970, (New Delhi, 1993), p. 116.

2. Ibid, p, 113.

The Malabar Tenancy (Amendment) Act 1951 made it extendable t o

52 villages of South Canara but due to the opposition of the landlords of

South Canara, it was reduced(') to 33 villages. The tenants criticised that

the act supported the major interests of the landlords. The act fixed the

fair rent at 5:5 between the tenants and landlords. The original amend-

ment bi l l introduced in 1950 provided, for security of the tenure t o the

cultivators. But due to the pressure of the landlord class, it held forth only

qualified fixity when it finally enacted the legislation. In effect the new

amendment sewed only as an invitation to the landlords t o get their ten-

ants evicted on various pretextsc2).

Massive agitation was launched against the implementation of the act

by the Malabar peasants. In May 1952 the Malabar Karshaka Sangham organised

a conference at Kottayam taluk. Similar types of conferences were held in

different taluks of Malabar and Kasaragod as a protest against the Act. The

legislators of Malabar and South Canara met the Chief Minister of Madras on

1 3th May 1952. The Malabar Kudiyan special conference at Calicut was con-

vened by the Kisan Sangham, presided over by K. P. R. Gopalan. It gave a call

to observe 1 5th January 1953 as Token Satyagraha Day. It also resolved to take

out a Kisan Jatha to Malabar to present a massive petition.

The government decided to amendc3) the Malabar Tenancy (Amend-

ment) Act, 1951 in 1954. The Act contained provisions fofl4) the fixation of fair

1, L! 1C Kunhikn'shnan, Qnancy Legisation In Malabar; 1880-1970, (New Delhi, 1993), p. 116.

2. Ibid p. 119.

3. The Madras Cw'e, Vol. 4, Unrepealled Madras Acts; Law Department (Madras, 1961), p. 458.

4. E RadhaMmn, RkziantStnggks, LandRehrmsand~lUMnpes(~Devrhi), 1989, p. 105

rent, qualified fixity of tenure, curbing the landlord's right t o eviction,

protecting the rights of homestead tenants and abolition of the practice of

depositing one year's rent as advance by the verumpattam tenants or the

chalageni tenants.

The MLA's of Malabar belonging to the Communist Party and the Praja

Socialist Party joined together in appealing the government of Madras for

effecting(') a thorough amendment to the Tenancy Act 1951. Because of the

powerful opposition the government of Madras was forced to suspend certain

provisions of the act.

The 11 thAll India Conference of the Kisan Sabha was heldc2) in Kannur, at

Kayyur Nagar from April 23rd t o 27th of 1953. It was presided over by

lndulal Yajnik, the president of the Kisan Sabha. I t marked a revived spirit of

the peasantry of Malabar and Kasaragod. A special conference of the Malabar

Kisan Sabha was held at Calicut. A delegation consisting of K. P. R. Gopalan,

K. A. Keraleeyan and C. M. K. Nambisan went t o Madras t o submit a

memorandum(3) to the government which was signed by one a half lakh peasants.

In 1956, the Malabar Karshaka Sangham was reorganized as Kerala

Karshaka Sangham and i t s first state conference was held at Shornur in De-

cember, 1956. The conference passed important resolutions such ad4)

demanding ceiling on land holding, distribution of waste land to the land less,

stoppage of all evictions and cancellation of all agricultural debts etc.

1. 1! ~unhiktishnan, Tenancy Legislation In Malabaj 1880-1970, (New Delhi, 1993), p. 116.

2. A. K Poduval, Keralathile Karshaka Pnsthanatfiinte Oru Lepu Charitfiram (Mal), (JBiruvanantfiapuram, 1969), p. 104-1 05.

3. Ibid, p. 108.

4, 1C 1C Kunhikrishnan, Tenancy Legislation In Malabac 1880-1970, (New Delhi, 1993), p. 132

Legislations after the formation of Kerala State.

With the formation of Kerala State and the amalgamation of Kasaragod

taluk with the Kerala State, the peasant struggles and land reforms in Kasaragod

taluk and Malabar entered in to a new phase.

Because of the new trend developed in the political scenario of Kerala

caused by the peasants and workers agitations the Communist ministry was

elevated t o power i n the f i rst general election i n Kerala i n 1957.

E M S Namboodiripad was elected as the Chief Minister and he assumed office

on 5th April 1957. With in a few days after assuming office, on 11 April 1957,

through an ordinance (later enacted as Kerala stay of Eviction Proceedings Act

of 1957) stayed all eviction and allied proceedings against all categories of

tenants and preventing courts from accepting fresh eviction suits.

The second conference of the Kerala Karshaka Sangham was held(') at

Kaladi on 19th and 20th October 1957. The then Chief Minister

E. M. S. Namboodiripad, Revenue Minister K. R. Gouri, Law Minister

V. R. Krishna Aiyer, A. K. Gopalan and others attended the conference. This

conference appealed to the government to enact a progressive agrarian law

in Kerala at the earliest.

With in two months of the Kaladi conference the government of Kerala

introduced the Agrarian Relations B i l l on lgth December 1957 in the Kerala

Legislative Assembly. The main object of the bi l l was the implementation

through constitutional means, the basic slogan of the peasant organisation and

1. A. K Poduval, Kerahthile Karshaka Prasthanathinte Oru Legu Charithram (Mao, (Thimmnanthaputam, 1969), p, 12i: see also A. K &palan, Ente Jeevitfiakadha, (Mao, Thimvanantbapuram, 1980), p. 302.

Legislations after the formation of Kerala State.

With the formation of Kerala State and the amalgamation of Kasaragod

taluk with the Kerala State, the peasant struggles and land reforms in Kasaragod

taluk and Malabar entered in to a new phase.

Because of the new trend developed in the political scenario of Kerala

caused by the peasants and workers agitations the Communist ministry was

elevated to power in the f irst general election i n Kerala i n 1957.

E M S Namboodiripad was elected as the Chief Minister and he assumed office

on 5th April 1957. With in a few days after assuming office, on 1 1 th April 1957,

through an ordinance (later enacted as Kerala stay of Eviction Proceedings Act

of 1957) stayed all eviction and allied proceedings against all categories of

tenants and preventing courts from accepting fresh eviction suits.

The second conference of the Kerala Karshaka Sangham was held(') at

Ka\adi on 19th and 20th October 1957. The then Chief Minister

E. M. S. Namboodiripad, Revenue Minister K. R. Gouri, Law Minister

V. R. Krishna Aiyer, A. K. Gopalan and others attended the conference. This

conference appealed to the government to enact a progressive agrarian law

in Kerala at the earliest.

With in two months of the Kaladi conference the government of Kerala

introduced the Agrarian Relations B i l l on lBth December 1957 in the Kerala

Legislative Assembly. The main object of the bill was the implementation

through constitutional means, the basic slogan of the peasant organisation and

1. A. K Poduval, Kera/athile Karshaka Prashhanatfiinte Oru Legu Charitfiram (Mal), (Thim~nantfiapuram, 1969), p. 12T see a / ' A. K Gopalan, Ente Jeevithakadha, (Mal), Tbiruvmnthapuram, 1980), p. 302.

also the national movement that was "land to the tiller". The B i l l was intended

to achieve the abolition of the tenancy system, introduction of ceiling in land

holding and distribution of the surplus land and enjoyment of the right of

ownership over the house stead's by hut-dwellers. One of the important

provision of the Bill was the fixity of tenure to all types of tenants including

crop-sharen, fugitive cultivators and hut dwellers. The ceiling of ownership

in land was proposed to 15 acre per family. The tenants were given right to

purchase ownership by paying an amount not more than sixteen times, of the

fair rent payable to the landlord.

The introduction of the Kerala Agrarian Relations Bill (KARB) resulted in

unprecedented opposition from the landed aristocracy with the support of

the communal forces. The KARB and the Kerala Education Act introduced by

the first Kerala Government were highly progressive. The orthodox section

of the Kerala Population could not tolerate the progressive reforms and the

existence of the communist government. The government declared(') i t s

police policy and made it clear that the government would not use the

police to suppress the workers and peasants agitation and would not use

police to protect the lands of the landlords. This was a new turn in the

history of Kerala. This infuriated the aristocrats and communal forces to

turn against the government.

A rapid political polarization emerged in Kerala. The Communist Party

and peasants started to mobilise the people to protect the new bi l l

introduced in the legislature. The Congress Party and the Praja Socialist Party

l. A. K Gopalan, Ente Jeevithakadha, (Mao, Thiruvananb?apuram, 1980), p. 258.

(PSP) with the support of the landed aristocracy and the communal forces

started counter mobilisation against the KARB. This resulted in conflicts in the

political scene of Kerala.

On 29th March, the Kayyur Martyrs day in 1958 a mass demonstration

was organised(') at Thiruvanandapuram. A. K. Gopalan, E. M. S. Namboodiripad,

A. Prasad Rao, K. A. Keeraleyan, A. V. Kunhambu and others attended in the

demonstration in order to mobilise people to support the KARB was the ob-

jective. In May 1958 a special conference of the Kerala Karshaka Sangham was

organised at Moovattupuzha. The conference discussed the bill and suggested

certain amendments. When the bill was in the select committee the Kerala

Karshaka Sangham organised conference of i t s representatives in each dis-

trict to discuss the draft bill and prepare amendment.

The Nair Service Society (NSS) under the leadership of Mannath

Padmanambhan requested the government to consider the faults and injustice

of the bill. A meetingc2) of the Yoga Kshema Sabha at Kottayam in February

1958 demanded the right to resume for self-cultivation of lands with in

ceiling limit fixed and to compensation at the market price for the lands

taken over.

A conference of the Bishops was held at Bangalore in December 1958.

The conference discussed the material and spiritual methods to overthrow

the ministry. The Congress Party and the Praja Socialist Party (PSP) organised

joint agitati~ns(~) involving protest marches, meetings, hartals and satyagrahas.

1. l? Rw'haknShnan, Bzant5ih.&gks, LandRehmsand5&bl Q I a n g e s ( ~ ~ h i ) , 1989, p. 115

2. Ibid, p. 119.

3. IbiG p. 124.

It was important to mention the trend inside the Congress Party on land

reform legislation. The Nagapur session of the Congress held in January 1959

passed a resolution for providing ceiling on holdings and also called for the

completion of land reform by the end of 1959. Same way the Government of

India (led by the congress party) gave ample directions(') to the states to go

ahead with land reforms. The very purpose of land reforms was to put an end

to the landed aristocracy. Many of the Congress leaders belonged to the part

of landed aristocracy, so they never came forward to fulfil1 the resolution of

the party and at the same time opposed the land reforms introduced in

Kerala. The Congress took on the side of the landed aristocracy and the

communal forces and struggled against the KARB which became a model to

Indian land reforms.

The third annual conference of the Kerala Karshaka Sangham was held

in March 1959 at Perumtalmanna. It expressed anxiety in the slow legislation

of the KARB and demanded passing the bill as amended by the select commit-

tee in the next assembly session itself.

As a part of opposition against the KARB, the land owners associations

or the Janmi Sanghas began i t s work in different parts of Kerala. Small Land-

owners Associations were also founded. They organised conventions, meet-

ings and demonstrations against the proposed Bill. They Passed resolutions,

submitted memorandum, petitions, press releases and submitted evidence

before the select committee. Gradually mass protest and mobilisation of the

I. K K Kunhikn'shnan, 75nancy Legis//ation In Mdlaba~ 1880-1970, (New Delhi, 1993), p, 136.

people against the government started in Kerala. Thus it culminated in a

period of political agitation called "the liberation struggle". It gained more

support from Travancore than other parts of Kerala.

The state assembly passed the KARB in July 1959. Because of the lib-

eration struggle under the leadership of the leftwing of Kerala, finally on 3Ist

July 1959 the Kerala Ministry was dismissed by the President of India. The fall

of the ministry was undoubtedly a great loss to the peasantry.

To protest the KARB, which was sent to the President of India for his

assent, the Kerala Karshaka Sangham organised a Long March from Kasaragod

to Thiruvananthapuram from 29th June to 24th July 1960, under the leadership

of A. K. Gopalan. On 25th July he submitted a memorandum to the govem-

ment. The Karshaka Sangham units through out the state observed this day as

the Kerala Agrarian Relations B i l l Memorandum Day.

In August 1960 the KARB was returned by the President recommending

further modification. The new Congress - PSP coalition government was quick

to grabcl) the opportunity and passed the Kerala Agrarian Relations Act 1960

(KAR Act). It revised the core of the KARB, to safe guard the wide range

interest of the landlord class. The President's assent was received on

2Ist January 1961 and came in to existence from 1 5th February 1961.

Even though the KARB was revised the new Act retained the main

bodyc2) of the KARB due to the pressure from the peasantry. The act did

l. F? Radhak&hmn, RasantSDuggk, LandReIbmandMa/QIangs(NewDeJ'hi), 1989,~. 132, see also, K K ~nb1M3hnan, Te/~ncyLegislat&n In kbtbbaj 18801970, (@W Mhi, 1993), p. 142,143.

2. L! L! Kunhiksishrwn, Enancy Lqislation In Malaba/; 188P1970, (New Whi, 1993), p. 142,143.

not provide provision for rehabilitating the tenants who had been

evicted after the formation of the Kerala State. It provided the inclu-

sion of the provision for eviction of the tenants with i n plantation

areas and i t redefined 'small holder' as one with rights on less than 10

areas of double crop paddy land. But possessing only less than 5 acres

the lands belong to religious charitable or educational institutions of

public nature and public trusts were exempted from the provisions of

the act and the political representation provided in the land boards

and land tribunals.

The Supreme Court and the High Court of Kerala struck down several

provisions of the Act in a Judgment on 5th December 1961 on certain writ

petitions filed against the act from Kasaragod area. The Supreme Court also

declared the act as unconstitutional in i t s application in the ryotwari lands

in Kasaragod and Hosdurg taluks. So the government enacted the Kerala

Ryotwan Tenants Kudikidappukars Protection Act in 1962 for the tenants of

the Kasaragod and Hosdurg taluks.

From 27th November 1961 to 6th January 1962 Kerala Karshaka Sangaham

organised state wide agitation('). It began with picketing of al l the

Collectorates, but later included picketing of taluk offices, jathas and demon-

strations. A. K. Gopalan led a jatha from Kottiyur to Thiruvananthapuram for

picketing the secretariat. The jatha started from Kottiyur on 4th December

1961. The Kerala State Karshaka Thozhilali Union (KSKTU) had declaredc2) a

l. R RdhaMhnan, fWsntShgg&, Land RefbmandS&Za/Changes (New Delhi), 1989, p. 136.

2. A. K &p/an, Ente Jeevithakadha, (Mal), 73iruvananthapuram, 1980), p. 323,324.

general strike on December 16. The Government made negotiations and con-

ceded many of the demands of Karshaka Sangham and the agitation which

continued for 41 days was withdrawn.

The new organisation named 'Karshaka Niyama Raksha Samithi' was

formed(') to press the government for the protection of the KAR Act. I t s

members organised satyagraha at district Collectorates for securing i t s

demand. The Government introduced a new bill named The Kerala Land Rela-

tion B i l l in the assembly on 20th September 1963. The Karshaka Niyama Raksha

Samiti volunteers observed the day as black day with mass picketing and

satyagraha in the state.

In October 1963 the Karshaka Sangham under the leadership of A. K.

Gopalan, Pandalam Madhavan Pillai and others organisedc2) picketing and dem-

onstration in front of the Secretariat at Thiruvananthapuram. The main de-

mand was the withdrawal of the B i l l and the inclusion of the KARA in the 9th

schedule. The copies of the newly drafted bill were publically burnt on the

day, when they observed the Kerala Land Reforms Bill burning day, in the

same month. The black flag demonstrating protest against the bill and burning

publically the effigy of the Revenue Minister P. T. Chaco.

Despite of the opposition the Kerala Legislative Assembly passed

the Bill on 4th December 1963. The task of implementation of the Act was

left to bureaucrats because of the imposition of the Presidents rule for 2

years, due to the down fall of the ministry. This continuing political insta-

1. K V KunhiMshnant Tenan~Legi3Bti.n In Malaba~ 1880-1970, (&W Delhi, 1993), p. 144.

2. t? &dhak&hmnt kwntSimggkst Land RefbnnsandSbdal QZanges (Nav~Mhi)~ 1989, p. 138.

bility in the state and the low priority the government who introduced

the bi l l did not get the chance t o implement the Act. So the CPI(M) and i ts

peasant organisations namely Kerala Karshaka Sangham and Kerala Karshaka

Tozhilali Union started agitations for proper implementation of the Act. A

mass convention of peasants and agricultural labourers were held at Alappy

in December 1963. Then a delegate conference was held, presided over

by A. K. Gopalan. E. M. S. Namboodiripad, P. Sundaraya and others. The

conference demanded the immediate implementation of the new Act. The

conference decided to organise campaigns including public meeting jathas,

rally's through out the state and a state wide land grab agitation from

January to May 1970.

The conference focused agitation for occupancy of Kudikidappu land.

There were serous delay on the part of the government t o recover the

surplus land and its distributions t o landless. So the CPI(M) decided to estab-

lish the rights of the cultivating tenants as owners of their leased lands and

accelerating the acquisition of surplus land and distribution. As a part of this

the party organised a mass convention at Cochin in May 1972, presided over

by A. K. Gopalan. The convention decided to start agitation(') for identifica-

tion of the surplus land and government waste lands and establishing people

right on them. Thus the CPI(M) organised a mass agitation for 80 days during

May-August 1972 and 47 days during November-December 1972. So the mass

agitation organised by the CPI(M) and its organs had resulted the effective

relation of the reforms in Kerala. 1. t? @dhakr&hmn, RsantStnr9i~k, Land R e f b m a n d ~ a l ~ a n g e s (New Dalhi), 19889, p. 150.

After the collapse of the CPI(M) led coalition ministry, a new govern-

ment was formed led by CPI and C. Achuta Menon became the Chief Minister.

The Kerala Land Reforms Act of 1969 was brought in to force from the

Is' January 1970 and was implemented by the ministry.

The act abolished tenancy and landlordism in Kerala. The transfer of

ownership rights to the cultivating tenants, they were expected to pay a

nominal sum of purchase price to satisfy the constitutional provision. It gave

options to the hunt dwellers or Kudikidappukars to purchase three cents in a

city or major municipality, 5 cents in municipality and 10 cents in a panchayath.

For these land owners get a price of 25% of the market value and the third

scheme was to take possession of the surplus land by government after impos-

ing ceiling limit and distribute such surplus land among the landless agricul-

tural labourers. Through this provision on the amendment Act, Kerala became

the first state in India which abolished land monopoly and absentees landlord-

ism with effect from 1" January 1970.

The act gave option to the hut dwellers to purchase his homestead

from the land owners on easy terms. The act reduced the ceiling limit to 20

acres for a family of 5 members and it empowered the government to take

possession of surplus land by ceiling laws and distribute it among the landless

agricultural labourers. The act confirmed full ownership to the cultivating ten-

ants and ceiling on land holdings and distribute of surplus lands after take over.

The Act 1969 proposed that a l l transactions of the surplus land

as per the Act 1963 should be annulled. On the other hand many land-

lords had retained the surplus land by making false documents and the

government was not ready t o distr ibute the surplus land t o the

landless people.

On a review of the process of the implementation of the Kerala Land

Reform Act, 1963, as amended was considered necessary that certain amend-

ments should be made in the Act for the speedy and smooth implementation(l)

of i t s provisions. As the Legislative Assembly was not on session, an ordinance

for the purpose was promulgated on the l* day of February 1971 and

published in the Gazette as ordinance No. 4 of 1971, the B i l l seeks to replace

the ordinance by an Act of the Legislature opportunity has also been taken to

make certain other amendments which were found necessary for the

implementation of the Act.

The object and reason for the amendment was the persistent demandsc2)

from various political parties in the state and the public in general for popular

participation of the implementation of the Kerala Land Reforms Act 1963,

especially the ceiling provisions thereof. Experience in the working of the

Act had also revealed that popular participation is essential for the speedy

and effective implementation of the Act.

It has also become necessary to plug certain loopholes in certain

provisions of the Act, which had come to notice during its implementation.

Village committees are proposed to be constituted for helping the implemen-

tation of the provisions of the Act regarding assignment of landlords and

1. The Madras Code, VoL 4, Unripeatled Madras Acts; Law Department (Madras, 1961), p. 260.

2. Ibid, p. 261.

intermediaries right to the cultivating tenants('). Taluk and Boards have been

also proposed for the purpose of decentralisation of the functions of the Land

Board in the implementation of the ceiling provisions. A Land Reforms Review

Board i s also sought to be constituted with power to give necessary guide-

lines to the various authorities and officers implementing the Act.

While communicating the assent of the President to the Kerala Land

Reforms (Amendment) Bill 1971, the Government of lndia had suggested to

the insertion of a provision enabling the state government to notify the so-

cially and economically backward classes for the purpose of an assignment of

excess lands might be made in the Act. The Government of lndia had also

desired thatc2) the explanation to subsection (1 ) of section 85 of the Act should

be modified in order to avoid any possibility of families or adult unmarried

persons who did not hold lands exceeding the ceiling area specified in the

Kerala Agrarian Relations Bill, 1957 being penalised for transferring their lands

during the period mentioned in the explanation. Through this Act, for the

first time the whole of the country people's courts were createdc3) by invest-

ing judicial powers.

Each village, committees were constituted with six non-official mem -

bers, village officer as i t s convener and a chairman elected by the committee

and Taluk Land Board was consisted(4) of a judicial officer not below the rank

of Deputy Collector as chairman and not more than six non official members. 1. The Madras Code, Vol. 4, Unrepesled Madrs Acts, Law Department (Mw'ms, 1961), p. 261.

3. K K Kunhibshnan, Tenancy Legislation In Malaba~ 18801970, (New &/hi, 1993, p. 15Z

4. t? RadhalosCshnan, R?aantS&u,k, Land ReIbmandWalChange (New Mhi), 1989, p, 156.

The land reform Board consisted of the minister in charge of Land Reforms as

Chairman, the Land Board Chairman as convener and six non-official

members. During the 1975-76 when the implementation of the Act at i t s

peak, the government further strengthened the machinery by increasing the

number of these full fledged tribunals.

Through the Kerala Land Reforms (Amendment) Act 17 of 1972, intro-

duced after the excess land agitation of 1972, the government deleted the

second and forth exemptions of the 1964 Act with effect from 16 August 1968

itself. The agitations organised(l) by the Karshaka Sangham and CPI(M) after

lst January 1970 had helped the hutment dwellers assert their right. The

tenant cultivators were earlier in the forefront for land reform.

The Kerala Land Reforms Act 1969 was put i n t o effect from

1" January 1970 was virtually over by 31" March 1982. During this

period(2) the implementing authority had disposed of 99.8 per cent of

the total applications for assignment of ownership rights to the cultivat-

ing tenants, 99.1 percent of the total applications for purchase of

Kudikidappus and 97.2 per cent of the total land ceiling returns. They

had also issued certificate of purchase in 99.2 per cent of allowed dis-

posal~ for assignment of ownership rightsc3) and 95 percent of the al-

lowed disposals for purchase of Kudikidappus.

Thus land to tiller, the long cherished desire of the Indian National

1. K K Kunhihshnan, Tenancy Legislabbn In Malaba~ 18801970, (New Dlhb 1993), p. 161.

2. R mdhahhnan, RsantS&u91~&, Land Refbm andWa1 Oanges (New Devrhi), 1989, p. 163.

3. Ibid, p. 163.

Movement and the peasantry in particular was fulfilled in Kerala and Kerala

had become a model to the Indian states, which established the social and

economic equality to a great extent through the effective implementa-

tion of the land reforms. The Communist ministry was dissolved in 1959

mainly because of the introduction of the KeraIa Agrarian Relations Bi l l ,

1957. Since the split in the Communist Party the CPI(M) had made a lead-

ing role and stood for the speedy and effective implementation of the

land reforms in Kerala.

While evaluating the land reforms acts of Kerala and Karnataka

it reveals that the enactment of progressive land reform laws and i ts

speedy and effective implementation had equal importance. In both the

states the land reform acts had provisions for the acquisition of the

surplus land from the landlords and distribution of the land to the land-

less people. In Kerala the objective was almost achieved but not in

Karnataka. Here arises the question, why Kerala was able to achieve the

effective implementation of the land reform act ? Why did Karnataka

fail ? In Kerala the Communist Party has i t s strong holds among the work-

ers and the peasants. In Kerala the implementation was keenly mobilised.

The peasant organisation was able to develop social and polit ical

awareness among the rural population and attain their confidence. Thus

the agrarian class responded to the call of the peasant organisation and

the Communist Party.

The situation in Karnataka was different. The land monopoly had

strong holds in the political structure. The Communist Party of Karnataka

was very weak comparing with Communist Party of Kerala. The proper

mobilisation of the peasantry for the effective implementation has not

taken place in Karnataka and South Canara in particular. The adequate

pressure from the needy i s essential for the effectiveness of land reforms.

In Karnataka because of the organizational weakness of the Communist

Party and the peasant organisations resulted in the poor implementation of

the land reforms.